Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2020 March 4

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation | Help desk | Archives
Help desk
< March 3 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 5 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


March 4

edit

02:39:51, 4 March 2020 review of draft by 94.192.4.85

edit


94.192.4.85 (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to submit credible references ?

Take a look at other Wikipedia articles (click random article to see some examples). You should see that blue citations appear, like this: [1]. You can create these citations by clicking the "cite" button on the top of the editor window (and can find more information on this here: [1]). But remember that these citations need to be reliable and independent of the subject of the article. For notability purposes, you should have multiple citations that are independent, reliable, and cover the subject of the article significantly (that is, not a mere reference). For more information on these requirements, see WP:Notability. Feel free to let me know if you have any other questions! Sam-2727 (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Example Domain". example.com. Retrieved 2020-03-04.

05:20:52, 4 March 2020 review of submission by Prajnadutta

edit


Prajnadutta (talk) 05:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


07:09:14, 4 March 2020 review of submission by Renukaapollo

edit

I have to create Wikipedia Page for my company Apollo Aerospace Components. The one I had written was rejected. Kindly help me how to write the company page. I have all the reference links also for supporting the information. Renukaapollo (talk) 07:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Renukaapollo: Wikipedia requires more than just links that support information. We need multiple reliable independent sources with significant coverage of the subject. Please also WP:DISCLOSE your connection with the subject as per instructions on that page. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:36:42, 4 March 2020 review of submission by Kamimashita

edit


Hello, my request to create a new page was recently denied. The reason given for the denial is as follows:

"This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."

To create this page, I referenced other awards wiki pages, including Crunchyroll's. If you take a look at their references, they literally only reference their own site and social media properties. I have included an image below: https://i.imgur.com/mjn6JVz.png

In fact, the references I have provided include more secondary sources than their page, an article from ANN which is an independent respected news website.

I would just like to understand how I can better format the page, and if Crunchyroll's Anime Awards page is in compliance of this rule, and if so, where my misunderstanding is.

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Kamimashita (talk) 07:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kamimashita: Hi! In short: Crunchyroll is a notable topic. Crunchyroll Anime Awards is not a notable topic. The reason we have it as a separate page is because it is too long to be in the main article. In contrast, /r/anime is not a notable topic. Even if it was, you would expand that article first and then WP:SPLIT the content instead of making a draft. So in this case, we judge /r/anime Awards as a stand-alone topic on its own without a parent article. And it does not appear to be a notable topic, not unless you have multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, as specified in that message. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:17:50, 4 March 2020 review of submission by MohammedKMS

edit


Hello,

I have been informed that the page I created (British Libyans) has been created. however whenever I google 'British Libyans' it never appears as a google search result. In addition I have tried to google the entry 'British Libyans Wikipedia', but still no sight of the page in the results which deems my created page as useless since no one can access it upon research.

It has been a while since to finally get it approved and I was happy to finally see it online, although I understand the huge backlog and appreciate your efforts, but was wondering if there is something I can do to see it in appear in google searches.

Please if you can advise on where is the problem.

thank you and all the best,

MohammedKMS (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MohammedKMS: - hi there. New articles can't be seen in search engines until they've been a) been patrolled by a new page patroller, which authorises it to be indexed by search engines and b) a search engine actually indexing it.
I believe a has happened (the system should have notified you) as I'm not getting an option to review it when I go to the page and page info states it is indexable. At that stage indexing would usually be pretty quick by the search engines, but we don't have any control over that aspect. If you check your notifications you might be able to see when it was patrolled. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:56:46, 4 March 2020 review of submission by Radmaipid

edit


Hello! I need help with my article. Can you please guide me with specific steps to follow? The response I get is too vague and complicated. I just don't know how to make the necessary changes. Thank you for the understanding and consideration.


Radmaipid (talk) 10:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Radmaipid The article seems to be written as more of a information essay that just tells about Mr. MacFarlane rather than an encyclopedia article. It has much promotional/opinionated language("MacFarlane is a dedicated husband and father", "MacFarlane’s business and speaking career began in earnest", "Not willing to end his athletic career on such a low note", etc.). Wikipedia articles need to sound pretty dry and not have excess descriptive language in them. Wikipedia articles should only summarize what independent reliable sources state about a subject. It also appears at least some of your sources are not appropriate; such as an interview with Mr. MacFarlane, which is a primary source. The article should only describe what others unaffiliated with him say about him, not what he says about himself, routine announcements about his work, or brief mentions. You may wish to read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to learn more about what Wikipedia is looking for. Successfully writing a new article is the hardest possible task on Wikipedia. It takes much effort, time, and practice.
If you are affiliated with Mr. MacFarlane, you must review and comply with the conflict of interest and (if you are paid)paid editing policies. 331dot (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:33:07, 4 March 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Visuseditor

edit


Dear Article for Creation Team,

I wanted this page to be created: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Thomas_Ertl


I got this answer two times (first from Whispering Dec' 6, 2019 and then from Sulfurboy Feb' 28, 2020: The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations.

There is really no additional source, that could be cited. I used footnotes wherever possible. I don't know what to do. It's just an english version of the german article about Thomas Ertl. I work with him, and know him in person. He asked me to set up this translation.

Could this EN page please be created?

Kind regards,

Leon Kokkoliadis, Visuseditor

Visuseditor (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Visuseditor Please understand that the German Wikipedia is a separate project from the English Wikipedia(and other language versions), each with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on the German Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable here. The main issue seems to be that while you have references, it is not clear what the references are citing because you have very few inline citations- citations within the text of the article(as footnotes). Please read about citing sources at WP:CITE.
Since you state that you work with the man you are writing about, you must review and formally comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies. 331dot (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:38:39, 4 March 2020 review of submission by Tina Rosco

edit


Upon your rejection notice, I re-read my proposed article and noticed it contained many non-neutral sounding phrases and adjectives, and a few sentences of information that were extraneous and not needed. I have gone through and attempted to remove all non-neutral sounding phrases, adjectives and information. Sometimes it is hard to notice those things until it is pointed out, but I am getting better at it and I think this morning's revisions to the article demonstrate an improvement. With articles about this company in several different countries and in notable sources like Forbes Magazine and Gulf Times, I believe they are considered notable by Wikipedia's standards. Your feedback is appreciated. Thank you for your time. Tina Rosco (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Tina Rosco[reply]

Tina Rosco (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Rosco, Your article has been rejected, which means it will not be considered further. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sulfurboy, thanks for getting back to me. Is there anything I can do or try in order to avoid having this draft be a waste? I spent a lot of time on it and I think it's good now, and should be reconsidered. Please let me know. Thank you for your expertise. Tina Rosco (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Tina Rosco[reply]

17:49:17, 4 March 2020 review of draft by Ufdent98

edit


Hello! I'm writing for two purposes:

1. WikiAviator wrote:
Also, please do not present the article like a lost as you did in "Television Career" section. I don't understand what "like a lost" means. If it means list... Then I'm unsure how to write any more formally.

2. I'm unsure about what parts of the article aren't formal enough. Could someone please point me to specifics?

Thank you very much! steve schroeter

Ufdent98 (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Ufdent98 as for your first point I think it's just a simple typo WikiAviator made - I believe they meant "like a list" KylieTastic (talk)
  • Thanks, that's a typo and it means list. You have to write in prose, and you're not supposed to break his bio into too many sections and if a section is too long that you have to break it up, you're not logging it event by event. The section's content isn't that long, so you should link these contents together with the appropriate sequencing words to make it read like a prose instead of a shopping list with un-linked events. WikiAviator (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:10:24, 4 March 2020 review of draft by TamaraJW2020

edit


I am requesting help as my draft has been rejected as it says additional references are required and the submission is written from the point of view of the company. However, everything written is a fact, not opinion, and many of the references are from high-quality journals, as well as some news pieces. I am not sure why this hasn't been accepted. TamaraJW2020 (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TamaraJW2020, Have you read what is required by us to show notability WP:NCORP and what are considered reliable sources WP:RS? And just because something is factual, doesn't mean it can't be written with inherent bias and undue weight on certain viewpoints. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:58:10, 4 March 2020 review of submission by Emmalee03

edit


This violinist, Yesong Sophie Lee, is one of the most popular young upcoming violinists. She has over 10 pages of google searches, and has concerts regularly. I am a big fan of hers and would like to create a wikipedia page about her. The last reviewer said that she was not notable enough for a wikipedia page, but that is not true. I have gone to one of her signing events and there was a really long line, and the security had to cut the line off because it was so long. She also was the youngest winner of the Menuhin International Violin Competition (considered the olympics of vioiln) when she was 12, and has performed all over the world since. She is all over youtube and I really hope you reconsider having this draft made into an article. She is a classical violinist, and classical music is less popular than pop songs, but it's no less important. Yesong Sophie Lee is such a wonderful young musician and deserves a wikipedia page and I'm sure a lot of people will agree. THank you and hopefully, you will reconsider my submission. THank you so much and have a great day! Emmalee03 (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emmalee03, Your comments show that you might not have taken the time to review our notability requirements, see WP:NARTIST. Someone being all over youtube, the amount of hits they have in google, and/or your personal opinion of them are not valid criterion that we employ. A previous editor has outright rejected the article, which means the draft will not be considered any further. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:10:53, 4 March 2020 review of submission by JennaNeiterman

edit

Hi! For this article, we are having trouble toeing the line between being self-promotional while also proving that the subject is noteworthy enough to be published in Wikipedia! I did receive some feedback about editing the awards section, which I am happy to do. Is there a way that it can be outlined/marked up so that we can see what is interpreted as self-promotional? Also, in regards to the comment on linking to LinkedIn, if a website is reliable, but shouldn't be included in an external link, how do we reference that information? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites I intepreted this as being ok since it linked to her LinkedIn page! JennaNeiterman (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JennaNeiterman, Who is the "we" in that post? Do you work for a PR/marketing firm or for the subject? Sulfurboy (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:11:36, 4 March 2020 review of submission by JianSun2008

edit


JianSun2008 (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JianSun2008, Do you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:32:58, 4 March 2020 review of submission by 123.201.225.143

edit

because we have many other references if below references are sufficiant for article creation so please move to Main Article space [1] [2] [3] [4]

References

  1. ^ https://conf.researchr.org/profile/VMCAI-2017/swarupsolanki
  2. ^ https://www.todayindia.live/2020/02/digital-expert-swarup-solanki.html
  3. ^ https://www.worldexpressnews.in.net/2020/03/image-credit-by-today-india-news-swarup.html
  4. ^ https://www.bhaskar.com/news/HAR-OTH-MAT-latest-gharaunda-news-033006-1834854-NOR.html

123.201.225.143 (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:37:53, 4 March 2020 review of draft by JordanDRobinson

edit


Hello Everyone! I've reviewed the beginner guide and just want to make sure I'm on the right track. My feedback was that my article does not meet the in-line requirements for citations. Before I begin to alter this, I was hoping perhaps I could ask for further information in regards to what needs to be changed. For example, I see that one auto-generated footnote has a red notice regarding a missing title. I'm not certain how to fix that, or if it is considered a problem, both the source and title are clear.

Or have I over-cited? (is that possible?)

I DO have a reference that is problematic that I can see regarding Ancestry.com, as it requires a login that will clearly not be available to the average reader. So I can remove that, and I have a hard time believing the family information listed there will be disputed as it is directly from both the subject and a genetic/family tree website.

I know you are all incredibly busy and I appreciate your time and consideration being as new as I am to this, but overall I felt that the majority of the facts put forth were very clearly backed up by clear and legitimate sources, so any insights you could provide would be wonderful.

Thank You!!


JordanDRobinson (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JordanDRobinson. I've fixed the reference that was missing a title for you.
You may not use Ancestry.com or similar genealogy websites as a source, nor may you use information you obtained directly from Mr. Kitchen. Primary source public documents on Ancestry.com may not be used to support assertions about a living person. The user-generated content on the site may not be used because such content is not reliable. Personal communications from Kitchen may not be used because they are not published. Unless you can cite published, reliable, secondary sources for the material, you will have to remove the entire biography section and corresponding portions of the infobox. It is not a question of whether the information is true or not, but whether it is verifiable. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You WorldBruce!! I'll see what I can do about potentially finding public records or something of that sort, and remove whatever I can't verify before I resubmit. Even this gives me a better indication of how strict I need to be with citations, so I'll keep that in mind and go back through it. Your help/advice is greatly appreciated! (also I hope I did even this response correctly...)

21:59:42, 4 March 2020 review of submission by Spiritletters

edit


Hello, Wiki citations were removed and replaced as advised. Please assist with further edits needed? Thanks! Spiritletters (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritletters (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia references are still there and none of the other sources are suitable, the draft has been rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2020_March_4&oldid=985275884"